We had a good time at St Olaf tonight — it was a small group, I gave a short talk, and we had lots and lots of stimulating conversation afterwards, along with my favorite pizza (jalapeno and pineapple). I’ve tucked what I sort of said below the fold.
I am here to bring you some good news.
The universe is about 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus a few hundred million, and the earth itself is about 4.6 billion years old. How do we know this? The work of astronomers in measuring cosmological constants, in calculating the age of stars and the size of our universe; the work of physicists on principles of radioactive decay, and measurements of the age of rocks; the work of geologists in charting the many layers of rock and puzzling out the mechanisms of change.
There are currently somewhere between 10 and 100 million species living on our planet, and we also know that 98-99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. We know this because of the work of systematists who have carefully documented approximately 2 million species so far, because of the work of ecologists who have carried out statistical sampling to estimate how many species are left to discover, and by the work of paleontologists who have uncovered era after era of lost worlds in Earth’s history. And isn’t the uncertainty in the specific number exciting? There is so much left to discover!
All those species on our planet are related to one another — we can trace lines of descent that link every one of the residents of this Earth to every other; we are distantly related to worms and bacteria and sea anemones and trees. We know this because, again, the paleontologists have shown us the chain of history, and because the molecular biologists have mapped out the genes and shown us their similarities. The proteins in my eye that capture light and convert it to an electrical signal are present in jellyfish, and the cellular mechanisms and the genetic code we use to translate those genes into action are identical.
All of us here in this room are apes and descendants of apes. Examine our anatomy, our physiology, our molecular biology, our chromosomes and genes, and at every point the data joyfully points out that chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons are our brothers and sisters and cousins. We are family. We trace back our pedigree through the work of the paleontologists and anthropologists and molecular biologists, and we see millions of years of fascinating history — two million years ago, our hominin ancestors were making love, building families, bonding together in social groups, and they were struggling and suffering and experiencing all the fears and happiness and tragedies and travails of life.
These are tiny fragments of the good news of science. Most of you here are students at this university, and I urge you all to drink more deeply of the wonders that are taught in your science classes — sometimes I suspect that the greatest miracle in all of human history has been the product of the last few centuries of human endeavor, the deep hard work that has led to the explosion of information about the nature of the universe, the earth, our history, and ourselves. You are at a university. You are at the center of the greatest revelation of all: a flowering of intellectual thought that has at its center the rejection of tradition and dogma, and the celebration of doubt and exploration and relentless criticism and a foundation of naturalism and materialism. We have a formula that works, that has a demonstrated track record of success.
At the same time, though, we are in a country and a culture that has a strong element that rejects our good news, that wants to turn its back on empiricism and reason and return to a comforting ignorance. In some ways, I can’t blame them. New knowledge demands new ways of thinking and new ways of seeing ourselves; the idea that the life we value so much is but a transient scum on one neglible rock in a vast universe is difficult to face if you’ve been brought up to believe that you are center of all purpose in the cosmos. Our problem right now is a religion that has become a force for foolishness.
I’m going to denounce this religion, but first let me say a few mildly conciliatory words. Religion, like science, is a human enterprise, and it reflects entirely human values and concerns. Personally, I do not consider religion to be a force for evil — human beings are darned good at finding excuses to do evil, with religion or without — but I also do not consider it a force for good, and it is a dreadful distraction that misleads people away from productive paths towards truth, and too often replaces genuine thoughtful introspection with rote adherence to dogma … a sin, I will freely admit, to which science is also prone, and which we always have to be on guard against. Some here may still cling to the consolations of what I consider to be rank superstition, but if you’re willing to set it aside in all questions of the natural world, and if you confine those beliefs to your personal philosophical framework and what you call “spirituality,” I’ve got no gripe with you. I won’t tell you to use the scientific method in your prayers if you won’t try to use your prayers to tell me how the world works.
This hypothetical enlightened religious belief is not what is dominating our culture right now, however.
There is a $27 million dollar “museum” (I use that term very loosely) that has opened in Kentucky in this past year that claims that the earth is 6000 years old, that dinosaurs lived alongside humans (and that, by the way, T. rex used those massive dagger-like teeth to crack coconuts), and that all modern ills are a direct consequence of Charles Darwin’s teachings.
We have a think tank with a multi-million dollar yearly budget in Seattle that is dedicated to casting doubt on scientific findings and injecting creationism in our public school classrooms. It claims to be secular in purpose, but as the Dover trial exposed, it is religiously driven. Let me quote President Farris of Patrick Henry College:
You don’t stand up in the public schools and say, ‘We’re going to bring prayer into your schools and we’re going to do it with this bill right here right now. You do something smarter than that. You talk about intelligent design. You talk about teaching evolution and the facts that support it and the facts that negate it and pass a bill that says they shall both be presented in an evenhanded manner. And then you discipline your supporters to keep their stupid mouths shut.
We have a president who claims that a god instructed him to go to war. We have a president who, like Farris, thinks ideologically-driven, anti-scientific nonsense deserves equal time in the classroom. We have a president who believes faith can replace reason.
Since this is St Olaf, let me also quote Martin Luther.
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but — more frequently than not — struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.
Or how about this?
But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore.
I was brought up in the Lutheran church, so I know that for the most part the church has left behind Luther’s petty bigotry and hatred of reason, so I would not make the mistake of damning this fine university with the ravings of a 16th century fanatic, but I will suggest that, as far as we’ve moved from that degree of irrationality, our society has room to move a little further, to a complete abandonment of the error of religion.
I have told you the good news of science, and I’ve told you a little about how we come to know those facts — and trust me, the depth of the information you can discover in any science textbook is vast beyond any one person’s comprehension — but compare that knowledge with what you can find in most people’s favorite source, the Bible.
There is a scant two pages on the origins of the natural world in the book of Genesis, and I’m being generous. It is maddeningly vague, internally inconsistent, and couched in clearly metaphorical and poetic language. It is also wrong in every detail. It is not even a good metaphorical description of the creation of the world; it does not map in any sensible way to the actual history of the universe. Sure, you can appreciate it as a pretty story, as a window into the mind of a tribe of Middle Eastern peoples a few millennia ago, but it is not an accurate or objective picture of the world we live in. As a science textbook, the Bible is rubbish.
I know what the immediate objection will be: modern religion, enlightened theology, does not treat the Bible as a science textbook — it’s like complaining that the textbook “Molecular Biology of the Cell” is not written in the form of an epic poem.
That would be fair enough, except that polls have shown that roughly half of all Americans — over 150 million people in this country — do think it is a literal guide to human origins. The churches aren’t correcting them in this error of interpretation of the bible, but to a large part instead are reinforcing it. I’m a realist: I prefer to judge religion on what it actually does, instead of what it claims it does or should be doing, and I’m afraid religion in practice has demonstrated itself to be no friend of science.
Even distinguished theologians make this terrible mistaken assumption. A few weeks ago, there was a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, both of Oxford University, and Lennox made the same mistake. He tried to argue that the Biblical story was not an erroneous description of the origins of the world, and at one point he tried to give the Bible credit for accurately stating that the world had a beginning. That’s what he was reduced to; in the face of all of the wealth of detail, the complex mathematics, the accumulated evidence of physics and astronomy, the theoretical and observational data for the big bang theory, the deep work driving string theory, the international research in cosmology, John Lennox stood up and boldly faced the question of whether the universe had been here forever or had a beginning, and proudly said that “At least [the Bible] got the right one.”
Dawkins’ response was perfect: “Toss a coin and you had 50 per cent chance of getting it right.”
Let’s regard the Bible for what it is: a sincere attempt to understand their place in the world by a collection of ancient peoples, that is actually little more than a collection of bad guesses, gussied up with logical fallacies and threats and demands that you must accept them. It is not enough to say that it is not a science textbook: we must also be clear that is is anti-scientific, that it preaches a way of knowing that is the antithesis of the scientific method.
I’m here addressing the freethinkers of St Olaf, and you probably already know all this. The real question we should have is what are we going to do about it?
Obviously, what we must do is speak out. Freethinkers in this country have two serious deficits: 1) we are a somewhat cowed minority, although that is changing, and there is a tradition of unwarranted deference to religion. If someone wants to pray, that is their right…but at the same time, there is a reluctance to assert our right to ignore the calls to prayer, and when people do speak out against forced piety, they are often ostracized. And 2) freethinkers are FREETHINKERS. We’re a motley mob of deists, agnostics, secular humanists, pantheists, atheists, and who knows what else, and organizing seems to be against our nature. We have to resist that; we have to be willing to work together while recognizing the diversity of perspectives under the umbrella of freethought, and treat that variety as a strength rather than a weakness. And that’s hard.
Let me tell you about my father, who was a perfect example of both of these problems, and who, I think, represents a larger part of the religious tradition in this country than is appreciated. I never saw my father in a church. He never claimed affiliation with any particular religious tradition. He would readily disavow any form of organized religion, but he sometimes expressed a reverence for nature that was almost spiritual. He never spoke out directly against religion, and expressed no reservations about my mother sending us kids out to Sunday school and church every week; we never, ever discussed religion. Ever. We did talk about science, and he was a great unlettered fan of science. He’s gone now, and there are a lot of questions I wish now that I had asked him. But you know, if there had been a freethought movement then, I’m pretty sure he would have willingly joined us – he most likely would have been in the deist or perhaps the agnostic faction, but I think he definitely would have found common cause with even the most militant atheist above a James Dobson or a Michele Bachmann.
There are a lot of people like my father in America.
That’s our mission. We must build a tradition and an institution of freethought that discards the old dogmas and superstitions, that relegates the Bible and Christianity to what they are – interesting mixed examples of history, philosophy, sociology, art and literature, but most definitely not science, law, public policy or morality – and that elevates reason and evidence and naturalism as the intellectual ideals to which all children of the Enlightenment should aspire. On the one hand, we have to clear away the old bones and cobwebs of overreaching religious thought, and on the other we have to create an attractive set of ideals and organizations that will recruit the great majority of sensible people, people like my father, to our side.
And we have to do that without compromising science.
I have to leave you with one last quote from Richard Dawkins that perfectly personifies the New Atheist attitude, and that represents a sentiment that I think not only every loud and proud freethinker should agree with, but should also be a fair statement of principle for even the most devout Christian here. Consider it a unifying ideal.
“Science is interesting, and if you don’t agree you can fuck off.”
I love you PZ. And your pizza, too.
You tub-thumping old revivalist, you :)
Very nice indeed. I am not so sure about the Pizza though…
Well said.
Cheers,
Ray
You should make a pit stop in the Upper Peninsula this winter to speak. :)
Bravo!
Dawkins’ response was perfect: “Toss a coin and you had 50 per cent chance of getting it right.”
There’s still a good chance they got it wrong.
I hope I am not violating a rule here, but I’d like to re-post a comment I made a few days ago. I believe it is germane to this discussion and I’d like other opinions.
I stated that “..Religion IS inherently immoral!! It is by definition…” “Truth machine” took me to task (to be mild) I believe for my argumentation I believe (I could not glean “truth machine”‘s agreement or disagreement with what I was trying to say). Putting aside my possibly poor use of of the word “definition”, etc. — does the essence of what I am re-posting resonate with you?
To me it is time we recognized and vocalized that “religion” is inherently a bad thing .. based on its charactistics and attributes alone if nothing else. Here’s my attempt [unedited] at expressing that:
Religion IS inherently immoral!! It is by definition. And by definition it is ALWAYS dangerous and detrimental overall. That is not exaggeration; I am not an intolerant madman.
Note I said by definition. Personally I believe anything that values and promotes past musings and/or tradition and/or superstition over discovered truth and reason is IMMORAL… for that alone me thinks religion hits the immoral mark squarely and fairly, but I’ll otherwise expand. Religion is by definition: adherence to dogma (the truth be damned), imposed hierarchies (your personal power by damned), imposed laws and customs (value or fairness be damned), threats and unilateral actions to enforce such (rationality and proper justice by damned), etc. etc. Religions (even its “secular” forms like Nazism, Mussolini’s Fascism, or Soviet Communism) all have these basic immoral characteristics. Those define them as religions!!
As for “Religion is something that has been shared by a vast majority of successful societies” I’d say: show me a truly moral, fair, just, and progressive society that did not get that way thanks to secular thinking and endeavors; thinking and endeavors that actually had to overcome religion in some fashion to be effective! Societies are not enlightened because of religion, but rather generally in spite of religion.
Nice speech.
I liked very much the “I won’t tell you to use the scientific method in your prayers if you won’t try to use your prayers to tell me how the world works”.
But, in my view, your speech would have been perfect without the “our society has room to move a little further, to a complete abandonment of the error of religion.”
The word “little” is wishful thinking. Don’t you agree ?
Great speech, PZ. One minor quibble… that final Dawkins quote is in itself a quote from an (unnamed) editor at New Scientist Magazine.
BTW, the Big Bang being the “beginning” might not necessarily be the end of the story.
Read here what one of the world’s most renowned quantum cosmologist has to say about it, Martin Bojowald in Nature Physics :
http://npg.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n8/full/nphys654.html
(it’s online free and well worth the read…)
does the essence of what I am re-posting resonate with you?
Aside from your inability to comprehend what “by definition” means, you seem to have trouble reading what PZ wrote: “Personally, I do not consider religion to be a force for evil”
BTW, the Big Bang being the “beginning” might not necessarily be the end of the story.
As I noted previously. Dawkins “50%” is quite a false dichotomy; “not steady state” does not mean “had a beginning”.
I also don’t consider religion generally a force for evil, but I believe it is a useful resource that helps sustain a lot of nastiness in the world. For example, if people want to oppress women or gays they can, without much effort, find a religion (or a particular preacher within a religion) and phrases from a Holy Book that sustain their views. There is much unpleasantness in the world because people can claim that their view is supported by God. Take away religion, and its cherry-pickable certainties and you help people start to think about their views.
Oh, and honestly… that pizza!
Science really does bring Good News, every day, and I appreciate even the sarcasm of using that theme for your talk.
That seems to be the hard part, doesn’t it?
I believe it is a useful resource that helps sustain a lot of nastiness in the world.
Me too; I have noted how religion is used to manipulate people for political ends. The same is true of nationalism and other irrational tribal associations.
“And then you discipline your supporters to keep their stupid mouths shut.”
That seems to be the hard part, doesn’t it?
In this case, it was the stupid leader who opened his mouth.
Well said, that man! A nicely-framed little homily.
I certainly think we should go with the collective noun of “freethinker’ rather than “bright”. It emphasises freedom rather than implying some sort of MENSA-like exclusivity and arrogance so it’s less likely to put people off.
I could also go with being a ‘motley mobbist’ but ‘fuckoffist’ is probably a bit too in-yer-face – unless you’re dealing with the “family values” bigots.
There you go again “truth machine” .. blasting away and leaving less value than I suspect you could. Oh well too bad I’d say.
I stand by my statements STILL. Forget esoteric definitions of definition; religion by its nature (charactistics and attributes) is an immoral system. I judge it that because of my values, and how I weigh certain things. Others may disagree. I am looking for productive discourse one way or the other. Again I find it sad you cannot engage me on shall I say more cordial and respectful grounds. Overall for what it is worth I find you interesting when less vitriolic.. and sincerely – it makes me sad what happened to your relatives.
As for PZ .. I am not sure I disagree with him or he with me.. not sure?!? I don’t thing PZ meant religion as a system of thought — but rather as a driver of most humans. Good people will graviate to doing good things for the most part – in spite of religion or in spite of atheism gone “wild.” Believe he added “but I also do not consider it a force for good, and it is a dreadful distraction that misleads people away from productive paths towards truth, and too often replaces genuine thoughtful introspection with rote adherence to dogma … a sin, I will freely admit, to which science is also prone, and which we always have to be on guard against.” My point is religion is a system that is built on the “sin.” Science can be corrupted but its nature is not built on a corrupt set of operating principles.
Hope you can see past your — I don’t know — “unfriendliness” to help a fellow traveler.
Peace out
I always wonder, if a religion gave up its “Personal God” stories and “Sex is only for reproductive purposes”, would it still qualify as a religion ?
PS “truth machine” I think you are correct in your comments in #15 .. my food for thought might I add is that it takes the nationalism or tribal associations under a system that is (by my definition – sorry) religious to effectively take otherwise good people and turn them into “evil” doers by manipulation. That’s what Mussolini did for instance.
My 2 cents.
There you go again “truth machine” .. blasting away and leaving less value than I suspect you could.
Nice ad hominem. I think “blast” pretty well describes your caps and exclamation marks.
Forget esoteric definitions of definition
“esoteric”? That’s a nicely dishonest dodge.
religion by its nature (charactistics and attributes) is an immoral system. I judge it that because of my values, and how I weigh certain things. Others may disagree.
That would seem to indicate that it isn’t inherently immoral. As for it being “an immoral system”, you haven’t made clear what you mean by that. Religion isn’t a single system, and there are many people who subscribe to various religious systems who are quite moral people by my judgment. OTOH, there are some religious systems that demand immoral (in my view) actions of their practitioners.
I am looking for productive discourse one way or the other. Again I find it sad you cannot engage me on shall I say more cordial and respectful grounds.
blah blah ad hominem blah
Hope you can see past your — I don’t know — “unfriendliness” to help a fellow traveler.
It’s hard to help someone who doesn’t want to listen.
We’re a motley mob of deists, agnostics, secular humanists, pantheists, atheists, and who knows what else, and organizing seems to be against our nature. We have to resist that; we have to be willing to work together while recognizing the diversity of perspectives under the umbrella of freethought, and treat that variety as a strength rather than a weakness.
This is great stuff, exactly the right political message (though I should make clear that I’d include some of the nicer, politically reasonable, theists and cultural religionists in the “who knows what else”). On the one hand, anyone who is for freedom, reason, and science, and against religious dogma, authoritarianism, and the moralities of misery is fine with me. On the other hand, any alliance I have with any of these people shouldn’t make me shut up about the fact that I am working with stringent naturalist assumptions, myself, and consider this rationally justified.
#19 negentropyeater “I always wonder, if a religion gave up its “Personal God” stories and “Sex is only for reproductive purposes”, would it still qualify as a religion ?”
Yup in my book! if the system has these attributes or characteristics: adherence to dogma, imposed hierarchies, arbitrary and self-serving imposed laws and customs, threats and unilateral actions to enforce such (rationality and proper justice by damned). Yup it would be. My opinion grant it I guess.
my food for thought might I add is that it takes the nationalism or tribal associations under a system that is (by my definition – sorry) religious to effectively take otherwise good people and turn them into “evil” doers by manipulation. That’s what Mussolini did for instance.
I can’t make sense of that — perhaps because you seem to be using a non-standard definition of “religion”. If you want to communicate effectively, use the common definitions found in dictionaries, instead of making up your own. Also, as I’ve noted before, you can’t (properly, honestly) support your position by mere fiat — which is what redefining terms serves.
Even atheists like Christopher Hitchens are manipulated by their irrational tribal associations into advocating quite evil actions, like the slaughter of huge numbers of people just because they are Muslims.
I always wonder, if a religion gave up its “Personal God” stories and “Sex is only for reproductive purposes”, would it still qualify as a religion ?
Incorporating a belief in deities is sufficient to make something a religion. And what religions other than Christianity and Islam declare that sex is only for reproductive purposes? That’s not even true of Judaism, an Abrahamic religion. And ever seen those erotic Hindu temples?
Last attempt .. “truth machine” lighten up! Wow!!
I suspect – based on other stuff I read of yours that we share much – in agreement – yet you BLAST away as if I am your mortal enemy while never really addressing underlying pointing I’m trying to make.
Mamma mia lighten up my good man or woman – life is too short. I am not writing a rigorous thesis here.. we are just sharing thoughts and helping each other (I hope) find their way.
Again peace out
iLast attempt .. “truth machine” lighten up! Wow!!
Look, asshole, just because I disagree with or am critical of something that you say does not warrant that sort of response. It’s clear that you’re a coward who simply can’t tolerate any sort of challenge.
The last quote is not originally from Dawkins, he was quoting a New Scientist editor. See end of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o
“Truth machine” appreciated your comment in #24.. I can work with that. Thanks.
Rightly or wrongly I am not concerned with what a dictionary says. I am concerned about moral attributes and characteristics.
Read Mussolini’s text books for high school students (don’t know if they are avalable in English). They are basically religious texts in my mind. They drove otherwise decent people to do irrational and immoral things. Very very sad to me. Luckily “my people” woke up.. but too late. And by the way I can point with some pride — tarnished by other sides of coin I am sure — that a lot of italians risked their lives to shield jews. That is a different story.
Again I appreciate #24 – it showed show recognition (right or wrong standpoint not important) of my value in some fashion.
Take care
“I always wonder, if a religion gave up its “Personal God” stories and “Sex is only for reproductive purposes”, would it still qualify as a religion ?”
Buddhism has no personal God and is certainly a religion. I would class Marxism as a religion too, but obviously that can be disputed. Judging from some of the sculptures, there are branches of Hinduism that regard sex as not only for reproduction.
Rightly or wrongly I am not concerned with what a dictionary says.
As I said, if you want to communicate, you will be concerned with that. But you seem only to want people to agree with you or validate you — “show recognition of my value”? Jeez, get a shrink for that insecurity.
They are basically religious texts in my mind.
Yes, because your mind is wrapped up in a tight circularity. You try to show that religion is inherently immoral by labeling everything that you consider immoral to be religion.
Well said, that man! A nicely-framed little homily.
Yes, he’s preaching to the choir.
Sorry I am an “asshole” to you .. was NOT implying that in the least about you.. for what it is worth. I was just saying lighten up and work at showing some empathy or sympathy .. I just am losing your points (#24 I can work with) not because I cannot withstand critique (want productive give and take) but because your method is not helping me.
BTW I am assuming you seriously misunderstood my post so you called me an asshole. Otherwise I’d say that was really out of bounds.
Take care
“it’s like complaining that the textbook ‘Molecular Biology of the Cell’ is not written in the form of an epic poem.”
Well, wouldn’t that be an interesting project… There truly is a beautiful artistry to the complexity of life, from the largest to the smallest in every detail. I think that the long association of art with religion serves art poorly. Entangling itself with science would be a much better choice. There is a certain beauty to the truth, you know…
Of course, I’m weird that way, and likely the only one who thinks this a good idea.
I am concerned about moral attributes and characteristics.
Ah, that is good. So stick with that — discuss how the sorts of systems you are concerned with produce immoral behavior, and then note that religion can lend itself to fostering such systems, rather than going way overboard and claiming that all religions are such systems and all such systems are religion. You diffuse your message by attacking “religion” rather than the dogmatic/hierarchical/enforced characteristic that you are actually concerned with.
I hope you find that helpful.
Sorry I am an “asshole” to you .. was NOT implying that in the least about you.. for what it is worth. I was just saying lighten up and work at showing some empathy or sympathy
Who are you to tell me what to do? An asshole, that’s who. Stick to the subject matter.
Wow .. I do not consider everything immoral religious. Wow . LOL
And I am not insecure .. just wise enough to know people effectively communicate with people by trying to understand what they (the other) is saying and playing it back for verification etc. normally in a friendly fashion.
For the record here – I think any system that demands adherence to dogma, imposes hierarchies, imposes arbitrary and self-serving ilaws and customs, and threats and unilateral actions to enforce such is religious in nature and is immoral.
If you all disagree with that let’s discuss it — BUT not my meta-model for expressing my opinion – not where I want to spend my dime.
PZ wrote:
I don’t know if you’re interested in anthropology at all, PZ. If you are, and you haven’t read Mary Douglas’ Purity and Danger, you might want to check it out. She has an argument in there about the genesis story and levitical regulations that suggests something a little more sophisticated than just ‘bad guesses’, speaking to the community’s social, economic and environmental boundaries.
I’m not trying to argue against your points about the ways many people interpret the text, or how horribly wrong the stories are. I just want to point to some potential meaning in the story beyond arbitrary guesses about the origins of the universe. If the story can be seen in terms of buttressing the boundaries set by the religious authorities, the style and content of the two creation myths preserved can be seen to follow at a certain logic (if only on the level of discourse about legitimate authority).
I don’t want to plug the book much more than that, but here’s a review.
BTW I am assuming you seriously misunderstood my post so you called me an asshole. Otherwise I’d say that was really out of bounds
No, I didn’t misunderstand anything. I posted substantive material in several posts, material that you simply ignored, instead flinging at me your “wow!! lighten up” and “mortal enemy” and “not writing a rigorous thesis” shit. I don’t care what you’re writing, if you’re not an asshole you take my comments into consideration rather than imply that I was wrong to post them — too heavy, too antagonistic, too rigorous, etc. You talk about empathy, but you seem to have virtually no introspection. As an empath, I recognize severe insecurity and fear of challenge in you.
“I’m going to denounce this religion, but first let me say a few mildly conciliatory words. Religion, like science, is a human enterprise, and it reflects entirely human values and concerns. Personally, I do not consider religion to be a force for evil — human beings are darned good at finding excuses to do evil, with religion or without — but I also do not consider it a force for good, and it is a dreadful distraction that misleads people away from productive paths towards truth, and too often replaces genuine thoughtful introspection with rote adherence to dogma”
It is also true that science has nothing to say about values beyond helping us understand how we might have arrived at some of them. (For an illustration of how little it has to say, see how much any of you has in common with Hitchens on how to deal with the Middle East.) Religion, in terms of blind faith, is no help, but religious thought over the centuries is a repository of memes created by humans, some really interesting, some obviously moronic. Some of these memes have value, including many of the ideas that were bundled up into what became known as Christianity (new testament), which was in its day fairly revolutionary. In our enthusiasm to empty the bath of blind faith, we should be careful not to drain out all the ideas, which form the basis of many of our values and on which we have to keep building on as society changes. I would add that ideas, whether moral or scientific can have value, but they need continuous critical evaluation. I feel this rejection of good ideas is a danger, especially when I hear Hitchens ranting on about the immorality of “loving your enemy”. He paints it in very simplistic black and white terms which allows no possibility that one way of dealing with an enemy is show him compassion and respect, and possibly end up with him as your friend.
Wow .. I do not consider everything immoral religious. Wow . LOL
Wow? LOL? You label “Nazism, Mussolini’s Fascism, or Soviet Communism” as religion, when they simply aren’t. Perhaps you can say what “inherently immoral system” you don’t consider to be religious.
And I am not insecure
Then why are you looking for acknowledgment of your value? Why do you whine that you’re not producing a rigorous thesis? Of course you are insecure, very, and dishonest about it — to yourself, first of all.
If you all disagree with that let’s discuss it — BUT not my meta-model for expressing my opinion – not where I want to spend my dime.
You’re a pathetic hypocrite — you have been all about my “meta-model for expressing my opinion”. But I’m tired of wasting my time with you — good bye.
“Truth machine” .. let’s just agree we cannot effectively communicate with one another and leave it at that. I will refrain from another comment in regard to you, appreciate the same on your part. Take care.
Fine, you take care too. I’m sure you’re a good person at heart.
PZ, this is absolutely brilliant. I don’t want to be unduly flattering, but I’d really like to have permission to take this text (let’s call it the “St-Olaf Speech” !) and translate it into French, and post it… well, I don’t know where yet, but it has to appear somewhere. Maybe it will be a good opportunity to open my own blog.
OK I cannot resist:
“Nazism, Mussolini’s Fascism, or Soviet Communism” had essential characteristics of religion. Yup – god belief (as in Almighty God) was not their premier feature but that to me is the least relevant feature of a religion. It is adherence to dogma and authority that makes something “religious” for sake of my discussion.
Robber Baron capitalism was very immoral in many aspects. It fails my test for being religion-like though, mostly on the adherence to dogma aspect to stress a point for discussion.
That’s the sad thing about it. I think you are too “truth machine” (a good person) and I actually do try to carefully read your posts and actually do see a lot of gold in them.
Oh well — life is like that – ships passing in the night and all that stuff.
I hope I am not violating a rule here, but I’d like to re-post a comment I made a few days ago.
Yoo-hoo, Brownian!
Nice talk, PZ. I agree with your sentiment urging organization:
Yeah, and what makes it even harder is that two of the prominent voices of atheism right now, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, keep repeatedly denying the need to organize.
A friend of mine who works at Google asked Hitchens at a Google Talk in the Q&A about the need for like-minded free-thinkers to organize, and Hitchens said that no, we don’t need to organize…just go about your daily routine, read, enjoy good conversations, and so on. Then at the end of all this he said, oh, by the way, there’s an atheist conference in Washington in about a month. Huh? We don’t need to organize, but I’ll soon be attending an organizational meeting.
We seem to have a lot of momentum right now, but I’m just afraid it’s going to be squandered because we just can’t stay on message and get our shit together. I’m glad to see PZ doesn’t have a problem doing that.
Paging Cuttlefish…..
“Nazism, Mussolini’s Fascism, or Soviet Communism” had essential characteristics of religion.
Let me try that another way:
Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Kim, and Stalin all realized that religion has tremendous value as a tool for social and political control so they incorporated many aspects of religion into a totalitarian doctrine in which they effectively stood in the position of “god” for their people.
I’m pretty proud that I managed to boil that down to a single sentence!
Love that last quote from Dawkins. Priceless.
PZ, this was a wonderful distillation of your views. There was, as far as I can see, only one moment of vagueness—when you implicitly compared science and religion in terms of whether they could be a force for good, or force for evil. Whether you intended it or not, the impression a reader might get is that while religion might well be neither, science itself is clearly a force for good.
For the record, my two cents is that neither science or religion is inherently a force for good or for evil, but rather it is the application of same that makes them so.
I suppose a person could argue that there is inherent value in the practice of science, in that it cultivates critical thinking and wonder about the natural world, etc. But we could probably say something similarly general about the utility of religion, and this is the sort of namby-pamby declaration that the theologians are justly criticized for.
Anywho, other than this little caveat, I’m pretty much ready to sign the manifesto, including Dr. Dawkins’ sentiment at the end. In fact, I’ll go further. Slap a title on this, turn it into a PDF file and ship it out to whoever asks—starting with yours truly. I would use it as a reading for those interested in the science/faith interaction.
All of us here in this room are apes and descendants of apes…. the data joyfully points out that chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons are our brothers and sisters and cousins.
What about the bonobo? Everyone always forgets about the bonobos.
Molecular biology of the cell–an excerpt:
…
In every cell, the means of replication,
Monomers (they’re termed “nucleotides”)
A sugar and a base in combination
Link in helix, forming side by side;
Guanine will attach to cytosine
Always “G to C” or “C to G”
And thymine will as well, to adenine
With “T to A” or maybe “A to T”
The polymer called DNA is made
By adding monomers onto the end.
In living cells, a template strand will aid
The synthesis–the two strands now will bend
In double helix form, as we have seen.
The information carried in this strand
Will be transcribed by RNA; it’s been
Discovered that this process has a hand
In synthesizing proteins–but that’s still
To come–for now, we take a closer look
And see thymine replaced by uracil;
A slightly different way to write our book.
…
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2007/10/cellular-biologyan-excerpt.html
It occurs to me that the fundies are doing great harm to our country by steering their children (and other people’s children) away from science. Who knows how many potential Feynmans or Ramanujans have been soaked in the sour bile of theology instead of being allowed to fulfill their potential in science, math, or technology? It’s un-American (and probably anti-Our-Troops) to push religion on American Children.
Why does the Religious Right hate America?
Scott Hatfield — You seem to be restricting your notion of a “force for good” to some airy abstract moral good. Science, in just the past couple of centuries, has produced untold practical, actual “goods” that have vastly improved human well-being and the human experience in general–PZ’s “track record.” And science builds actual knowledge of reality. If knowledge isn’t a force for good there is no such thing as a force for good.
Marcus Ranum #50 – yeah
But I’d add it doesn’t make a difference why the actors are setting up themselves or their causes in a religious way. That way (something that embodies the major elements of most religions – save Almighty God worship) in and by itself is a very dangerous force in my book.
Sorry I haven’t time to expand and I’m sure I’ll have critics frothing over my lack of rigor in the post — but most will get – whether they agree or not – my gist I hope :-).
Wow, the first part was utterly Saganesque. If any of them had planned to write you off as a nihilist and tune out, they must have been sucked right in. I almost felt disappointed when you finally got into the J’accuse section, but I knew it was coming and I knew it was necessary. This is gold.
Oops–forgot to cite my source.
http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Fourth-Bruce-Alberts/dp/0815332181/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4747421-1224656?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192983558&sr=8-1
Of course.
See above ad hominem attacks by truth machine on ConcernedJoe (#27), calling him an “asshole”. This is out of bounds; where is the referee here? On a larger scale, this is why freethinkers have trouble being on the same side. Sad, really.
Encolpius wrote:
As I understood it, Scott was saying that the good or evil resides in the application not the knowledge itself and I would agree.
Knowledge of the atomic structure of matter can lead to nuclear power stations, which are good – apart from the poisonous waste – or nuclear weapons, which are bad – apart, possibly, from when they are used to prevent even more catastrophic bloodshed.
Religious doctrines and political ideologies have inspired people both to acts of great courage and compassion and to commit some of the worst atrocities people can commit against each other. It’s as if, at one level, they simply serve to magnify the capacity for both good and evil in all of us.
Again, the problem is not just religion, it is the human need for a sense of security which leads us to grasp at the straw of certainty offered by a faith or some utopian political movement. And, for some, once they are sure they are in possession of some unquestioned and unquestionable truth, they become sure that anything is justified in the furtherance of that truth.
That’s where the trouble starts.
PZ,
Actually that statement was made by an editor at New Scientist. Dawkin’s repeated it in order to show his comparative moderation.
Concerned Joe,
You are just wrong for the reasons Truth Machine brought up. PZ and you both make the mistake of talking about “religion” as if it were a single unified philsophy or ideology. It isn’t. Sloppy thinking which leads to bad conclusions.
Encolpius said in #59,
“Science, in just the past couple of centuries, has produced untold practical, actual “goods” that have vastly improved human well-being and the human experience in general–PZ’s “track record.””
I agree in principle but for this point: ‘Science’ did not produce anything. Nothing is ever produced by science or any other classification of knowledge. Production only occurs when knowledge, be it scientific or not, stimulates an individual human mind. That is the critical moment when the question of good and evil first is of interest and it is not generally answered until such time as there are results to judge.
It is the human element that is judged; the application of knowledge and, frequently, the personal motivations involved are the subject of concern, not the knowledge used. After all, I can use a knife to free you from a tangle or to kill you. The knife, and the knowledge of sharp edges, does nothing until it is in my hand.
Dawkins did utter those words but only to impersonate a former editor of Nature in an anecdote during a retort to Neil deGrasse Tyson (he argued Dawkins should play nice).
I think MagisterLudi and a few others, mistakenly think ad hominem and insult are synonyms. Calling someone an asshole in response to perceived assholish behaviour is and will never be an ad hominem.
Easily the most annoying and misused logical fallacy on the web.
that should read “is not and will never be…”
Re: #61
Well said, fellow FCD! I would add that, for me, the pursuit of certainty itself really negates the entire point of the spiritual quest. In order to be meaningful, our lives must be about the journey, not about the destination—if not, why would our lives and our choices even matter?
“Buddhism has no personal God and is certainly a religion. I would class Marxism as a religion too, but obviously that can be disputed. Judging from some of the sculptures, there are branches of Hinduism that regard sex as not only for reproduction.”
I would say given the Kama Sutra, that I don’t think Hindu’s regard sex as only for reproduction.
I can’t imagine anybody contorting themselves in that manner just to get pregnant.
Stuart
Thanks for an entertaining and worthwhile account, well worth while in the context. However, the ridiculing of the Old Testament creation accounts appeared to me to be inaccurate and over the top – from other accounts I’ve read of them as being sophisticated theological or mythical accounts tailored (out of historical sequence) to listing the various other gods of the flood plains that Jehovah was to trump by having created each of them, and then an earlier account geared to nomadic desert dwellers. The fact that Martin Luther bizarrely discarded the rich religious symbolism to assert that both accounts were historical truth, ignoring the contradictions, doesn’t mean we should also see them as simplistic fairy stories. Oh, and nice touch about Freethinkers. An attitude it’s nice to share retrospectively with Dr. Robert Darwin, Charles Darwin and both Erasmus Darwins. All good.
The quote that the other commenters have correctly said were not from Dawkins originally, is from a former editor of New Scientist. Here’s the full quote:
“What’s happening in science is the most interesting thing in the world, and if you don’t agree with me just fuck off, because I’m not interested in talking to you” – Alun Anderson, (Former) Editor-in-Chief of New Scientist
from this interview:
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/alumni/notable_alumni/interviews/Anderson_interview.html
You are a sick twisted and depraved man PZ. What did those poor jalapenos ever do to you to suffer the fate of being put on a pizza with pineapple on it?
Good talk though. Such a shame that it came from someone who has been so obviously brainwashed by the evil pineapple pizza people.
Hitler and Pohl Pot liked pineapple on their pizza.
I heard he preferred pol pot stickers.
They did. Aside from all the details (such as they are!) being wrong, they also invented an unevidenced god and claimed that was the “been here forever” entity. So they were sort of hedging their bets on that 50:50 choice.
Besides which, even in a “been here forever” universe, you can be sure the religious would merely have fallen back on quibbling over the interpretation – saying it was about the important part of the world having a beginning. Eg the formation of the Earth.
Quote:
John Lennox stood up and boldly faced the question of whether the universe had been here forever or had a beginning, and proudly said that “At least [the Bible] got the right one.”
I wonder how smugly he could state that if it hadn´t been for our oh-so-lovely science.
#60 MagisterLudi – “truth machine” has a style – I think (s)he’d be much more effective with a softer touch – I expressed that – maybe not my place to comment and maybe I seemed arrogant in my commenting on his/her style?!? but without meaning to I touched “him” off. In any case – it has been a general feeling of mine that people (especially on blogs and including pretty intelligent people like here) are not civil enough to one another. I castigate myself too. I have my moments commenting or just in real life when I feel like an “asshole” – ashamed for not being gentler or more caring. I think it would do the world good if all of us tried harder to be gentler even to those we think are idiots. For example, personally someone believing (I mean really) in god is weirdly wasting intelligence but it doesn’t mean I should personally deride and attack that person. I can call a spade a spade without devaluing that person – most probably someones loved one, and/or in some fashion a contributor to society. All I am trying to say is manners count in any forum. Not calling out anyone in particular – that statement is directed at me as well as in general.
#63 Brian Macker I don’t think PZ does that but not my place to say. I will comment on myself. I am saying that there there are characteristics and attributes that define something as religious in nature. Belief in the supernatural is irrelevant in my mental model of what is dangerous. Just like science can be defined by the characteristics and attributes of the method — and not all scientific endeavours are against one topic, end or result – we can call it “scientific” (or not) based on those. So social science and physics can be scientific – they are defined as such by the underlying char’s and attr’s of their system of study and operation as soceitial entities. Likewise religion (yes I do mean religion-like) is defined such by its char’s and attr’s. Personally (and I may be just a bag of rocks) I feel the “enemy” of reason, enlightenment, and freedom we battle is NOT belief in god (a vector, and weird, but not in and by itself dangerous) — but rather the system of religious like thinking, acting and institutions. Organized “-isms” for instance are red flags in my book. We attack the wrong thing by attacking someones ingrained feelings that give hope and comfort sometimes quite effectively. I thing they are stupid and totally unnecessary but to me they do not define a religious person (their feelings about afterlife, etc.). Rather it is the degree to which the char’s and attr’s I spoke about are operating in the person.
Hey I am a ConcernedJoe and that is my opinion.
Peace out.
PZ, Thank you for such a brief and illuminating summary of the place and history of religion and science.
I just heartened that there is a place in America where Olaf Stapledon is revered so highly.
See above ad hominem attacks by truth machine on ConcernedJoe (#27), calling him an “asshole”.
As Mondo points out, “ad hominem” is not a synonym for “insult”, you ignorant idiot.
This is out of bounds
Who made you the decider, asshole?
where is the referee here?
I think you’ve wandered out of kindergarten, twit.
On a larger scale, this is why freethinkers have trouble being on the same side.
Nice ad hoc blather, lame brain.
Sad, really.
Yes, quite pathetic, you are.
All I am trying to say is manners count in any forum. Not calling out anyone in particular – that statement is directed at me as well as in general.
As well it should, since you are a very rude person, as when in #18 you accused me of “blasting away” instead of responding to the substance of what I wrote. People who engage in that sort of behavior are dishonest assholes and I believe they should be called out for it.